Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 30, 2011 10:30pm-11:00pm PDT

10:30 pm
the implementation program -- this is the program that identifies each of the projects or efforts and recommends actions for how to implement them. some of these will happen right away when the plan is adopted, is ending chase's or some of the further work alike on san jose will be further work we need to do and look for existing funds to carry network forward. once the plan is adopted, it will go into our implementation group that the planning department. we have a small group whose job it is to implement these plans.
10:31 pm
they do interagency coordination to make these projects happen. we already have $3 million to make some of these pedestrian improvements around of the glen park art station. we are excited to move on those soon as we can. -- glen park bart station. finally, the zoning proposals. this document was in your packet and describes the proposal we will go through. currently, the district is a small commercial district surrounded by primarily residential zoning with the public parcel's shown in green which include the bart station and parking lot. clan part's commercial district was originally built around pedestrians and public transit, so we think it is a good fit and qualities people appreciate
10:32 pm
about this district work well with the zoning. our proposal is to recognize this district and create a glen park neighborhood commercial district that is unique to glen park which would include the curb cut this traditional to protect pedestrians along main retail streets, allow flexibility with parking in housing density because the existing buildings are flexible in those ways. these are holding buildings that do not have all parking. this is just a small area this would be applied to. there is also the family housing requirements, the two-bedroom units we have heard -- people are interested in more family housing. we are also proposing to expand the district slightly so we would include these three properties. these are legal, non-conforming
10:33 pm
uses, but operate as vibrant commercial uses in the district. everyone in glen park sees them as part of the district. we've proposed to reclassified as as part of the district and that would include destination bakery on castro street, the thai restaurant across from the bart station -- we are also proposing to introduce this row of six presidential apartment buildings into the district. this role of -- this row of apartment buildings, if you are looking west, you would see this and this breaks up the pattern of the commercial district. part of the commercial district, to the left of that -- the part that goes further down diamonds street. we don't think it contributes
10:34 pm
much to the character of the environment, but these rows of double wide transit oriented area. we would reclassify those. it would provide flexibility so that some of these spaces could turn into a potential retail. this is the final proposal. we're not changing any of the surrounding residential areas. in conjunction with the zoning proposal, we have a few suggestions for the building heights. currently everything in the glen park surrounding area is 40 feet. as we work more closely out there and got more intimate with the neighborhood. we saw this character is centered around certain streets. there is a sensitive interior
10:35 pm
and you can see this eclectic mix of buildings. they are very small scale. this is the view down diamond street. there seems to be discontinuous st. paul. this is of the view from the library, the second floor, where you can see some of glen canyon park in the hills. we have heard from the community they are important things to protect. throughout the district, there is a five-foot height limits -- [unintelligible] just to summarize on the community process, this process
10:36 pm
began in 2002 and was picked up again in 2009. it has not always been easy. there were a lot of difficult conversations about the bart parking lot and what is going to happen there. the tone and demeanor of the community has changed and we think we have broad support for this plan which feels really good. i just want to acknowledge that. at one of the last community meetings we had, there was a woman who came to the meetings to is very suspicious and skeptical. after we showed this height proposal, she came to me and said the plan is great. you finally did it. you finally get it. it was the last thing i expected to hear, but it felt good that we were being recognized. we know there is not agreement on everything. some people, for the example, the creek, there are issues
10:37 pm
people have mixed feelings about in the neighborhood, but in general, people want a plan to be completed and move on to the implementation treed let's spend the $3 million and get pedestrian improvements on the ground. our next step is to keep in gauging with you. we will be back in october, and we will talk after this, but if there are issues you want to learn more about, transportation improvements, proposals, we're happy to come back and talk more details about those. are hearing is scheduled for october 20th with plan adoption in november. the comments and response document will be published on october 27th, so that is moving along. we hope to come together before you to request the adoption and certification of this. in closing, i want to
10:38 pm
acknowledge a lot of the people who have participated in this, especially residents of glen park. many of these people have been tireless and really helped us out and helped to be a bridge between the city and the community. this plan is better because of it. the planning commission and the planning department, we worked city-wide, neighborhood planning was involved, we have been working closely with our partners on the project. that concludes the overview on the plan. we are open to discussion or questions. president olague: i will open up for public comment and then we will take commissioner comment. you can start coming up to the microphone.
10:39 pm
>> thank you. i am one of the concerned residents referred to in john's presentation. before i get on to my concerns about the greek idea, want to acknowledge the great work these gentlemen have done in the fact the plan is a fantastic document. but i do want to speak to the concerns that i have and my neighbors also have, specifically with regard to the contemplation of the creek. i live on chilton avenue, a small cul-de-sac which would be the street most impacted by raising the creek. is the street onto which the greek followed through a at one point. -- flowed through at one point. there are many objections that i have, but if i had to simplify
10:40 pm
the end to a few bullet points, i would so -- i would say as follows. the voluntary introduction of a body of running water into a residential neighborhood, especially like ours with houses that are 25 feet apart is a bad idea for some reasons. seismic reasons, environmental reasons, in sector reasons, smell, imagine having a body of running water that is sometimes stagnant right next to your house. i just think it's a bad idea. second, you have to understand the creek is in a valley between st. john's school parking lot which is a parking lot about one block long and wide in between boss worth avenue. the amount of litter that flows down into that creek area is massive. if we were to open that area up,
10:41 pm
it would be a natural collection point for garbage and i think the problems with that are obvious. the third point is maintenance. right now, the city does very little to maintain that. there are trees that fall down there and we call a city and they don't come and clean up. there are bombs and crack addicts back there. we call the city to get a crack addict out and they don't. another thing to consider is this is a flood zone. the runoff comes into that area and creates a flood zone. without maintenance, the flood zone, litter, running water, i think this is why the residents on chilton avenue are opposed to the idea. thank you.
10:42 pm
>> i'm the chair of the zoning and planning committee of the glen park association. we brought this plan to the attention of community members and there were plenty of public meetings the department put on and we had a series of our own. we wanted to be sure the comments really did reflect the community's concerns and interests. we believe we did that. the glen park association board supports the plan. we submitted plenty of comments. there is a comment to do with the plan and the eir. i won't go into what we set on that. the plan shows responsiveness to what we commented on, so we were pleased to see that.
10:43 pm
we appreciate that diligence of the team. they really did show up and help us. some of you may have attended the committee meetings and we appreciate the attention the community got in that regard. the comments we did have were to do mainly with the circulation of traffic and ensuring the downtown part of glen park really does conserve the quality of has. i believe they got it. we are very pleased with that. we want to see design guidelines and we believe they will be very important. but thank you very much indeed.
10:44 pm
>> good afternoon. i'm the vice-president of the glen park association. i am sort of overlapping with nicklaus. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. the glen park association board has been very active during the gun park community plan process. we attended planning department meetings, posted our own meetings, and sent comments to the planning department. we have seen the plan evolved based on our comments and notes we've sent to them. the glen park association board, we feel the glen park plan is ready for formal review and approval. we are looking for to the planning and design process, more meetings. the glen park association board sent comments to the planning department in june. one of the request we made was
10:45 pm
that the design guidelines and policies be written into the plan so that any new development in glen park will reflect the scale and character of our existing neighborhood. again, the planning staff has been very responsive to our requests. thank you very much. president olague: any additional public comment? public comment disclosed. commissioner moore: i am delighted the plan is as mature being presented to us. i'm glad to see there is a much support. i think it is a good piece of work. i would like to know who owns a glen canyon park as land? who is the owner of that? >> i believe it is the recreation and parks department. commissioner moore: then we need to take particular attention to
10:46 pm
how these plans are being addressed because i think i hear the road is an -- it's not quite where it needs to be. i am interested to hear you track that when we review the roads and a couple of week. who owns the bart parking lot? >> bart. commissioner moore: is part as an owner being treated as anyone who owns properties within the jurisdiction of the planning department and planning commission? they don't get preferential treatment -- they're just like a normal owner. thank you. >> one response to the glen canyon park. there is actually a glen plaid -- glen canyon park improvement plan that we just finished the draft of. that will spend $6 million of general-obligation fund to make improvements to that park. commissioner moore: i don't want
10:47 pm
to get into detail yesterday but i had a meeting with somebody who spoke about a project that is simultaneously on track with the road. to some extend [unintelligible] i want to make sure the policy document of updating the general plan element and specific plans are truly in sync with each other. commissioner miguel: i will agree regarding the roads. it is going to take a lot of looking at. i am also concerned with glen park canyon. i had the pleasure of attending a couple of the meetings out there between the department and the community. it has been a prime example of how things should go. my to disappointments are the
10:48 pm
fact that the earthquake that took down the central freeway and embarcadero freeway did not deal with san jose avenue. i consider it the same as the freeway. it has delighted those communities for years and we see what happens when they have gone from the embarcadero and when the central came around and what hayes valley is now. i can envision a resurgence, not necessarily in the same manner, one is more grand than the other, and this could be a third one down the line, but the concept of connecting the communities is there and i realize you are working on it. there's nothing that can be done now. my big disappointment, however, is nine years in the making and bart is still sitting on its ass. i can do nothing but criticize them for not joining in a
10:49 pm
cooperative planning process. the comments i have heard from part individuals have been it's up to the city to rezone it and then we will figure out, not that we will work cooperatively. that really gets me aggravated. i appreciate the fact you and your partner have had to struggle through this without being able to resolve it. i know from the comments i have gotten you would rather have had something happened during your whole process with bart and it could be a complete plan because without that, unfortunately, it is not complete for the neighborhood. i do look forward to as fast a result in bart to come to the
10:50 pm
table on this one. thank you very much for everything you have done. commissioner sugaya: if that is a good lead in to one of my questions. this plan does not propose a lot of zoning or height changes. i understand perfectly downzoning. i think it's very appropriate. i understand the additional 5 feet. that is city policy all over now. i'm curious how the department looks at this approach verses the whole of their sight of land use and transportation planning, which is to increase density around transit hubs. i would like some feedback from the department on the resolution of that seeming conflict in this
10:51 pm
particular neighborhood area. >> i think that is a great question. i think there are certain situations in the city -- commissioner sugaya: let me add one thing. this same issue is being discussed in japan town. the direction of the japan town plan after that was brought before us which had higher densities in it is now moving toward a similar approach, which is to do very little with respect to heights increases. >> i think there are some unique situations in the city. i think west portal has 25 foot heights. there are certain neighborhood commercial districts that maybe do not have, are not linked into the network to support high
10:52 pm
density housing in these older, sensitive arrangements, may be of san jose was not there and there were more connections for people to move through, it would be less of an issue. the other thing that comes to mind as we have struggled with this issue on mission street, where there are thoughts about reducing hides, but it's a major transit corridor and want to encourage more dense housing. >> i think it is a great question. it is a regional transit hub. it has not only bart, but the highway and muni stops. part of this is the balance to figure out between the scale of this particular neighborhood, which is quite special. with the idea of up zonian creating more density. where we came down -- the idea of up zoning creating more
10:53 pm
density. rather than sending existing bilked stocks, we could look at key sites like the bart parcel for some zoning density. but with a lot of care for how it is developed. to be honest, that's one of the reasons the plan does not support rezoning the bart station yet. because of the uncertainties, it was important to set the stage for that, but work separately with bart and the community on that site. it is not as if we don't believe it's an issue. there are couple of sites, but given the availability of land in the character of the neighborhood, we came down at looking at only the vacant sites. >> along the same lines, and the geography of the area we're looking at is tiny compared to the scale of the other planners. the opportunities for intel development are limited to a
10:54 pm
couple of small parcels. we are talking about a relatively high density -- you are down to that scale vs 10,000 or 12,000. the opportunity was just not there to pursue that goal without perhaps forcing disruption of what we sought to be particularly special area that survived the onslaught of the infrastructure. we saw the movement to be more recognizing that while supporting the areas function as a regional transit gathering place -- we want to keep that neighborhood function and transit connections in that area but not necessarily build all of the housing right here. we just don't have a lot of opportunity. >> thank you. maybe you can't answer this question, but i will raise it anyway.
10:55 pm
the kind of changes are proposed, the policies and everything, they seem to me to be somewhat parallel -- i will mention japan town again, but in this case, the zoning proposal, the glen park community plan is subject to environmental report. i think the advice being given to the japan town planning task force and the community is by minimizing the kinds of things that physically might take place under the plan, they could avoid having an environmental impact report. i am curious -- maybe there has been a change over the years with respect to how nea is
10:56 pm
looking at these community plans, with the level of changes seem to be on the same level of what is being discussed in japan town. >> i think the issue is thefta money we wanted to include in it impact environmental report. >> the issue here is that the eir is being driven by the plan improvements and not the development scale. if it were not for reconfiguring -- because of the congested nature of the area, we did some preliminary analysis and determined that is what is in -- that is what is triggering environmental. i'm not familiar with all of the street network changes in japan town, but it is conceivable and glenn parker for not doing it, we may not have needed to go the full environmental review route.
10:57 pm
-- commissioner antonini: i am pretty much on board and there are similar -- there are some similarities to west portal and i think what could be done at glen park and what you are talking about is there are some and the spaces underutilized and buildings that are basically grosz's that are falling down -- structures that are not even being used -- garages that are not even being used. it's important that it be contexture all and not out of the architectural character with the rest of the area. glen park has been fortunate is even more than west portal in that it survived architecturally most of the '60s when there are
10:58 pm
a few areas where things were torn down and single level surface level parking was provided. but not many. that's good and i think you have the opportunity and it would add to it and also keep the character, which is important. i understand the concerns about the creek. it's probably not year round door very little flow during the off months -- year round or very little flow during of months. but unless you had a source like a lake where you could control the flow and keep it coming at a regular pace, you will end up with stagnation and something that's not very attractive many months of the year. that is something we have to think about. rerouting san jose avenue and making the traffic coming is very important. what is important is to provide
10:59 pm
a station for people getting off the j line at glen park that is welcoming. so people will be able to get in and out or wait for the train with some shelter and not be caught in a sometimes when the area with cars whizzing by waiting for the trains to come. wherever we can make a connection to bart and make it as seamless as possible where people could walk the short distance to get to the bart station, that makes a lot of sense because there will be transit commuters who are going to get off and get to their next destination. those are my main things. i think you guys are doing a great job.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on